add new results

1 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/syscall/2123 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/syscall/2123
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2f949eaa6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/syscall/2123
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+<think>
+Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue where QEMU is spawning a subprocess even when the command doesn't exist. But normally, when you try to run a non-existent command, the system should return an error. The problem here is that under QEMU, it's still spawning a process, which suggests that the error isn't being caught correctly.
+
+The example uses Rust's Command::new with a non-existent command. When running normally, it hits the Err case, but under QEMU, it returns Ok and gives a child process ID. So QEMU is allowing the process to start even when the command isn't found. 
+
+Hmm. How does process spawning work here? On Unix-like systems, the execve system call is used to execute a program. If the executable doesn't exist, execve returns an error. But the fork and exec process involves first forking the process and then executing the new program. If the Command::new is spawning via fork and exec, then QEMU might be intercepting the system calls involved here.
+
+Wait, but in the case where the command doesn't exist, the execve call should fail. However, if the system is allowing the fork to happen and then the exec fails, the process would still be considered a child process. But why would the spawn method return Ok? Normally, in Rust's Command::spawn, it should return an error if the exec fails. Wait, maybe because the process is created but then immediately fails? But how does that translate into the result?
+
+Wait, the spawn function in Rust's std::process::Command returns a Child structure. The spawn function returns Ok(Child) if the process was successfully spawned, regardless of whether the command exists. Wait, no. Wait, when you call Command::new("nonexistent").spawn(), the Command struct is supposed to handle the fork and exec. If the exec fails (e.g., the command doesn't exist), the process should not be considered successfully spawned. But perhaps in QEMU's environment, the exec is failing, but the fork is succeeding, leading to the process being considered as spawned?
+
+Wait, no. The spawn method in Rust returns Ok if the process was successfully spawned, meaning that the fork and exec were successful. If exec fails, then the process is still created but immediately exits with an error. However, in that case, the spawn function would still return Ok(Child), but the child process would exit immediately. But in normal Linux, when you fork and exec, if exec fails, the child process would return an error, but the parent would still get a valid PID. However, the Command::spawn in Rust is supposed to handle that. Let me check.
+
+Wait, in normal Unix, when you fork and exec, if exec fails, the child process returns an error. But in the parent process, waitpid would show that the child exited with an error. However, the initial spawn (fork) is successful, so the parent gets a PID. But in the case of Rust's Command::spawn, perhaps it's catching that error and returning an Err if the exec fails. So how does that work?
+
+In other words, when you call Command::spawn, it tries to execute the command. If the exec fails (like the command doesn't exist), then the child process would exit with an error, but the parent would still get a Child structure with a PID. However, in Rust's implementation, does the spawn function check whether the exec succeeded or not? Or does it just return Ok as long as the fork was successful?
+
+Wait, I think that the Command::spawn function in Rust returns Ok if it was able to successfully fork and exec, but if the exec fails, then the child process exits immediately. However, the parent process still gets a Child structure. But in reality, the exec failure is detected by the parent process through the status of the child. However, perhaps in the case of QEMU, when the exec is failing, the error is not being properly propagated back to the parent process. So the parent thinks that the exec succeeded, hence the Child is created, but in reality, the command doesn't exist. That would explain why the Rust code is getting an Ok result when running under QEMU but not when running natively.
+
+But why would QEMU cause this? It could be that QEMU is handling the execve system call in a way that's not properly reporting the error when the executable doesn't exist. For example, maybe QEMU's emulation of execve is not checking if the file exists, or is allowing the exec to proceed even when the file isn't there. That would be a problem with how QEMU is handling the system call. Alternatively, perhaps QEMU is not properly propagating the error code from the underlying system call.
+
+In this case, when the user runs the program under QEMU, the Command::spawn is returning a Child process, implying that the exec succeeded. But when run natively, it returns an error. So the problem is that under QEMU, the system call is returning success when it should be returning an error. Therefore, this is a syscall issue in QEMU. The root cause is that the syscall (execve) is being emulated incorrectly, leading to an invalid process being spawned. So the category would be syscall.
+</think>
+
+syscall
\ No newline at end of file